Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. v. Millis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. v. Millis

352 So. 2d 585

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 6, 1977

DocketNo. 76-2047

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 352 So. 2d 585 (Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. v. Millis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. v. Millis, 352 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant brings this appeal from an order of the trial court denying its motion to intervene in the cause as a party defendant. Appellant’s three points on appeal relate to the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion or erred by denying appellant’s motion. We have carefully considered each of these points and have concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or err in denying the motion. Therefore, we affirm the order of the trial court dated October 7, 1976, denying appellant’s motion to intervene. See Miracle House Corporation v. Haige, 96 So.2d 417 (Fla.1957); Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Development Corp., 141 Fla. 538, 194 So. 783 (1959); Coral Bay Prop. Own. Ass’n v. City of Coral Gables, 305 So.2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Oster v. Cay Construction Company, 204 So.2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.230.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant brings this appeal from an order of the trial court denying its motion to intervene in the cause as a party defendant. Appellant’s three points on appeal relate to the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion or erred by denying appellant’s motion. We have carefully considered each of these points and have concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or err in denying the motion. Therefore, we affirm the order of the trial court dated October 7, 1976, denying appellant’s motion to intervene. See Miracle House Corporation v. Haige, 96 So.2d 417 (Fla.1957); Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Development Corp., 141 Fla. 538, 194 So. 783 (1959); Coral Bay Prop. Own. Ass’n v. City of Coral Gables, 305 So.2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Oster v. Cay Construction Company, 204 So.2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.230.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 So. 2d 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckley-towers-condominium-inc-v-millis-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack